Lets count up the votes! Who wins![:)]
Voting ends Monday Night Midnight
Or to say the same in a totally non-ambiguous way - voting ends at 11:59 pm Eastern Standard Time on Monday Jan 21st - not quite 24 hrs from now.
By request from SpaceMouse, I am keeping a running score. 36 people have voted so far. Top three layouts are still within 5 points (1 single best layout) vote of each other.
Smile,
Stein
Your vote counts.
My votes:
Overall
#1 Big Fork & Diehl
#2 Philadelphia & Erie
#3 Appalacian Central
For Scale:
HO-Big Fork & Diehl
N- Appalachian Central
Honerable mentions: (I know these don’t count)
Kintetsu Utsube Line - It’s a model in simplicity emphasizing scenery. Problem is I’m a continous loop kind of guy. Sometimes you just want to watch the trains go.
Lower Susquehanna Works - I really like steel ops, and I think this is a clever layout. I know how really hard it is to get a full steel works into a small space. I’ve gone through no less than 6 plan redos myself. But two levels is a bit much for a 10x12 room.
Some very interesting trackplans… Here’s my vote
Scale:
N-Appalachian Central
HO-Philadelpia & Erie
Top 3:
1.) Appalachian Central
2.) Philly & Erie
3.) Big Fork & diehl… very interesting trackplan to say the least
-beegle55
If this was Chicago, I could have voted 2 or 3 time by now[;)][:-^]
The voting has ended, result tabulated, and posted in a thread of it’s own. Here is a link to the results:
http://www.trains.com/TRC/CS/forums/1332632/ShowPost.aspx
Smile,
Stein
snagletoothwrote: Overall #1: Kintetsu Utsube Line (HO #5). This trackplan seems very versatile. With just slight changes in scenery, it could be a European tramway, or a turn of the century American interurban or county seat trolley line.
I think the layout concept could be readily adapted to model a European tramway or US interurban, but I wouldn’t use the trackplan as is - I’d makes some changes to that as well as the scenery. Features such as the runrounds are specifically intended to accomodate loco-hauled trains, whereas a European tramway using only self-propelled cars might have balloon loops, and a US line a stub track or wye, depending on whether they used single or double-ended cars.
The scissors crossover connecting the shunting neck and the main line at the depot at Utsube is a distinctively Japanese type of track layout, again I would use a more typical US or European layout if I were modelling another prototype.
But I do like the idea of adapting the design to other prototypes.
Being narrow gauge, you just add one switch somewhere for an interchange and turn it into an industrial narrow gauge or Maine two-footer.
There is an interchange, or more properly a tranship track, already on the layout. The isolated siding on the far left at Yokkaichi, drawn as a hatched line, represents a standard gauge siding that runs along one side the tranship platform, with the narrow gauge on the other. The passenger interchange is only hinted at by the stairs leading up to the standard gauge platforms at Yokkaichi, which are not modelled.
I’m glad you liked the layout,and that you took the time to post your comments, thanks,
Mark.
SpaceMouse wrote:
Of all the layouts, The Kintetsu Utsube Line is probably the best thought out, but it lacks the two elements I like about model railroading, continous scenic running and the ability to make or break trains. I could live without one but not both. In the end, the few switching moves would become monotonous.
G’day Chip!
The lack of continuous running has been mentioned by a number of posters. It’s something that’s a low priority for me, which is why I didn’t include any provision for it. But I can understand why many people like having that option. I reckon the design could be altered to include it without too much being changed. One way around it would be to include the former street trackage that ran from Yokkaichi to Yokkaichi-ekimae. This could cross the doorway and connect with the neck at Utsube. With the layout up around eye-level, and the track threading it’s way between the buildings, it shouldn’t be too obvious.
If anyone’s interested, I’ll be more than happy to redraw that part of the layout and include the connection. I might even decide it’s something I’d want as well!
Your comments about switching are interesting. They highlight just how much our ideas and expectations about operations differ. I’m assuming that when you talk about switching you mean moving a large numbers of freight cars in a multi-track yard, or amongst numerous big industries. That’s something this layout can’t provide, but there is provison for freight traffic between the freight houses and the tranship platform. Like many Japanese lines, the Utsube often tacked a freight car or two onto a passenger car, or ran the loco-hauled trains as a mixed. So there’s a bit of potential for switching there.
As well, there is a requirement for switching the MU cars themselves, which you may not have been aware of. On the Utsube, there are motor cars, driving trailers and plain trailers. The train consists were frequently changed, with cars being attached
Mark,
Congratulations.
For what it’s worth, I could see operational possibilities, however, what there was seemed to few in number and limited in what you can do. A fiddle track would have made a lot of difference operationally.
However, I know that is not what interests you as a modeler. I get the impression you could work months on your layout without ever running a train.
For that reason, your design is an excellent one.
The two " almost symetrical blobs" are supposed to grab your attention as you enter the room
As is the chin high bridge
This design is influenced by a local MR layout
Jim Lemmons HO layout
You can see more of it here
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2100191635
There’s something really cool about being able to walk up to a bridge and watch a train run right passed your nose
I thought about the steep grades and using switchbacks but that would have limited
the layout to JUST a logging line
As i stated it is a Logging AND Ore Mining theme with Passenger service using Steam other than Shays so i opted for the Helixes
As for the sawdust burners and mill pond
These are easy add ons BUT-------not all sawmills had ponds
Thank you, Chip. I really appreciate all your effort in mounting this competition, and it’s good to see others do, too.
<
Guilty as charged! [:D]
Again, thanks. I’m glad you liked it. I’m just a bit surprised that so many others did, as well!
All the best,
Mark.